Unpopular USMNT or US Soccer Opinions

Trapp is from the Crew, remember? Along with Zardes, they're 2 players, along with a few others, that are obvious cannot-do-no-wrong 3G favorite's.

Anything that keep Adams from shining in the #6 spot is supported and promoted by the USSF/SUMA. Once Adams plays 1 game there it will be sayonara for MB/WT. Some will argue that they can still add value as backups. I would agree with that as long as there is real competition from the up-and-comer's and in-form players.

Click to expand...

My focus on Trapp reflects that I do not believe in a truly open process he would emerge. I think his performance is underwhelming and he is involving in goals being allowed. As I obsessed about, he is actually prime age, not a kid. Those players are judged for now and not on theoretical upside.

In an accountable process that would be the end, and as you suggest, on to the next candidate.

I leave MB out because I think he, while old and falling apart, has some upper level skills and soccer IQ where he might emerge at the tail end of a 23 man list. Though I think that should be earned and not given.

And I on one of these threads made a similar argument that I don't understand moving players like Adams if "this" is what fills that void. Why does Pulisic move if Arriola goes in that spot.

Performance at youth levels have never been any kind of indicator of performance at the senior level or team like Nigera and such would be dominating the World Cup.

As to why we do not get good transition to the senior team goes: I think it is due to the lack of good coaching and good competitive play in our overall system. We just still do not have the structure to even have a chance of truly developing a large part of our talent. It does not take long for the MLS to change good players into thugs.

Click to expand...

I've always felt that x% of U20s turn out stars, y% turn out solid internationals or pros, and then, yeah, z% of the team doesn't turn out at all. For example, the ones who never escape the minors.

But you would think that a run of successful U20 teams, particularly relative to the other top teams in the region, would err on the side of more star kids than usual. It's odd to be the best regional U20 team 3 tournaments running and then at that time seem to have a bare cupboard in terms of incorporatable youth stars. I mean the can't miss list seems to be Pulisic and Steffen (and maybe Adams). That's like 1 player a tournament. I get there are no guarantees but the output is still poor.

I think it would be interesting to look at players from recent teams and their club situations. I think as a mature soccer nation we increasingly have to deal with the Bobby Wood Ambition Problem (abroad) as well as the Andrew Carleton Conundrum (domestic). The former is do our players abroad see the field for their clubs. The latter is do our domestic teams provide a place for MLS signees to take off. I think playing time for younger players is huge and yet what part of this system is premised on making these players focal and getting them time.

I realize pro soccer is not organized to be a U20 showcase -- including MLS these days -- but Bradenton is gone, college is "passe," and we seem to be handing the steering wheel over to clubs where our young prospects are just another player.

At earlier stages in this process, when we were admittedly less professionalized a system, the next generation coming up was the focus of its own attention, albeit in YNT residencies and college, or on MLS teams who gave out less roster space to expensive players and foreigners. It is now competing for time in pro club systems who see them as another raffle ticket in the big game.

But I'd have to go team by team and think through their individual landing pads to prove that.

Coming at it from a slightly different angle, Bradenton was usually the U17 home and I don't know why that should change for HS age kids other than the pretense of academy rights. It is dubious whether that dibs war is paying off. The players U17 are rarely professionals. So why not centralize the best ones and focus on them, Clairefontaine style, as opposed to trust Houston Dynamo academy who has a handful of first team players produced in a decade, two of whom have stuck that whole time. If we have to kiss up to MLS, fine, if you had that player for 5 years til 15, your rights remain while the Central Academy has them through HS.

Now, while I think that front half is intellectual rubbish -- I don't get what a HS academy ceasing to exist has to do with people signing after graduation -- the professionalism genie is not going back in the bottle. If more and more of the pool is avoiding college and wanting to go pro out of HS, there is nothing that can be done about that in the broad sense. But, one thing I notice is several U20 players, particularly defenders, who are in USL on loan from MLS. To be real, some variation on this is probably true of Europe as well. They may be on loan. They may be on Barca B or Barca U19. Odds are they aren't on the first team, either. Which I think is the problem, that as MLS has gone cosmo, and paid more payroll, that is no longer the easy way for an 18 year old prodigy to get minutes. So there is no short cut, no place of focus. College isn't realistic for them. MLS is now, like Europe, primarily focused on the first team. So it's to the bench or USL you go.

My answer: in 1983 there was Team America in NASL. In the 1994 cycle USSF signed a long list of players directly for a busy friendly schedule. In 1998-2000 -- a key period if you know your timing/history -- we had Project 40. An A League team of Generation Adidas players. You could create either a MLS team or a USL team, with a payroll, enough money to do competitive contracts, and sign U20s/U17s straight to a team only meant for them. You are no longer competing with Vela and Zlatan for time. You have your own team. You rise and fall on your merits. If you play your tail off and show well you start for the team. If you show well for them and the U20s you can probably write your ticket in transfer. And if we pay a good wage then it's a competitive choice for players who otherwise odds are would be taking a salary to go on loan or play age group ball anyway. You do not have to fend off the Ballon d'Or player to get minutes. You don't have to deal with MLS roster politics.

That, or you make the USL II teams U23s. Or require the affiliates have x% academy/HGP. There is no point to 25 year olds on an affiliate team. There is no point to basically having those teams as roster overflow. At least part of the problem, to me, is hearing the HD coach say the affiliate loan players still have to earn minutes. So there is literally no place -- at least within our team -- where a drafted player or HGP gets to relax and act like a touted prospect. In baseball they don't start career minor leaguers ahead of prospects, even if the kid is hitting .200 this season. You may get dumped at some point when they sour on you, but that's different. I'm not saying immunize players from competition. I am saying focus on the ones who are supposed to be the next big thing. We instead handle it like halfway between a prospect showcase and just any other minor league team that's unaffiliated and wants to win. No surprise our development results look like it.

Coming at it from a slightly different angle, Bradenton was usually the U17 home and I don't know why that should change for HS age kids other than the pretense of academy rights. It is dubious whether that dibs war is paying off. The players U17 are rarely professionals. So why not centralize the best ones and focus on them, Clairefontaine style, as opposed to trust Houston Dynamo academy who has a handful of first team players produced in a decade, two of whom have stuck that whole time. If we have to kiss up to MLS, fine, if you had that player for 5 years til 15, your rights remain while the Central Academy has them through HS.

Now, while I think that front half is intellectual rubbish -- I don't get what a HS academy ceasing to exist has to do with people signing after graduation -- the professionalism genie is not going back in the bottle. If more and more of the pool is avoiding college and wanting to go pro out of HS, there is nothing that can be done about that in the broad sense. But, one thing I notice is several U20 players, particularly defenders, who are in USL on loan from MLS. To be real, some variation on this is probably true of Europe as well. They may be on loan. They may be on Barca B or Barca U19. Odds are they aren't on the first team, either. Which I think is the problem, that as MLS has gone cosmo, and paid more payroll, that is no longer the easy way for an 18 year old prodigy to get minutes. So there is no short cut, no place of focus. College isn't realistic for them. MLS is now, like Europe, primarily focused on the first team. So it's to the bench or USL you go.

My answer: in 1983 there was Team America in NASL. In the 1994 cycle USSF signed a long list of players directly for a busy friendly schedule. In 1998-2000 -- a key period if you know your timing/history -- we had Project 40. An A League team of Generation Adidas players. You could create either a MLS team or a USL team, with a payroll, enough money to do competitive contracts, and sign U20s/U17s straight to a team only meant for them. You are no longer competing with Vela and Zlatan for time. You have your own team. You rise and fall on your merits. If you play your tail off and show well you start for the team. If you show well for them and the U20s you can probably write your ticket in transfer. And if we pay a good wage then it's a competitive choice for players who otherwise odds are would be taking a salary to go on loan or play age group ball anyway. You do not have to fend off the Ballon d'Or player to get minutes. You don't have to deal with MLS roster politics.

That, or you make the USL II teams U23s. Or require the affiliates have x% academy/HGP. There is no point to 25 year olds on an affiliate team. There is no point to basically having those teams as roster overflow. At least part of the problem, to me, is hearing the HD coach say the affiliate loan players still have to earn minutes. So there is literally no place -- at least within our team -- where a drafted player or HGP gets to relax and act like a touted prospect. In baseball they don't start career minor leaguers ahead of prospects, even if the kid is hitting .200 this season. You may get dumped at some point when they sour on you, but that's different. I'm not saying immunize players from competition. I am saying focus on the ones who are supposed to be the next big thing. We instead handle it like halfway between a prospect showcase and just any other minor league team that's unaffiliated and wants to win. No surprise our development results look like it.

Click to expand...

The U20 team did quite well against France without any of that. Go to any top European league and you'll find most of the younger players on the bench, in the reserves or out on loan.

The idea of a bunch of kids getting the shit kicked out of them literally and figuratively every week by more experienced players won't exactly lift their confidence.

The lack of physicality on both teams was noticeable today.

The US will play Ecuador in the quarter-finals on Saturday.

Anyway, of MLS academies produce great American players it's a side-effect of developing home-grown players to either win the MLS Cup or sell on to bigger teams.

Just making an observation. Not to say I didn't enjoy the game or that I'm not excited about our players coming up. I did and I am. There was some talent on display for sure and they showed great fight to make a comeback like that. I just thought that it was super obvious watching that it was a lower level game compared to watching the full team play. Speed of play was slower, players had more space, intensity wasn't as high... just a very different level than the full team. And yeah the full team, even with the Berhalter call ups I disagree with, would absolutely smoke the U20s.

Steffen to Fortuna: Latest episode in how Big Club signings have to be taken with a grain of salt. “Oh wow he’ll be playing in the EPL competing for time at keeper with the champions.” Except, not, no more than the others they have signed before. Bunch of games where he squeezed out other keepers we needed to look at, to chase a work permit he won’t need. And in reality back in Germany 3 notches up from the team (Freiburg) where he started. If there is a positive Fortuna looks like an injury mess at keeper who could in fact use a #1. But then he’s not actually their asset. For snobs some people are surprisingly gullible about how those kinds of big clubs actually operate.

Just making an observation. Not to say I didn't enjoy the game or that I'm not excited about our players coming up. I did and I am. There was some talent on display for sure and they showed great fight to make a comeback like that. I just thought that it was super obvious watching that it was a lower level game compared to watching the full team play. Speed of play was slower, players had more space, intensity wasn't as high... just a very different level than the full team. And yeah the full team, even with the Berhalter call ups I disagree with, would absolutely smoke the U20s.

Click to expand...

The first team forwards and keeper would whip the U20 forwards and keeper. But I see long term opportunity in Pomykal, Mendez, and Richards. [As well as Soto and Weah up high.] They would be complimentary to the senior club because they offer attributes missing from the unit ahead of them. Midfield shooting. Midfield touch. Forward finishing. Forward speed. Richards can get stuck in.

They need seasoning but I go back to how many players we have on the senior team who are lineup locks and play good most every night. It's a short list. So there will be room even if it's the 23rd jersey. US fans are so obsessed with the stars and winning they miss that 23 people make tournaments and get jerseys. In the next 2-3 years some of these guys will be getting chances and/or pushing incumbents aside.

Now, the keeper, Keita, Dest, Durkin, etc., not so much. But that's the other side of "some."

Pomykal was pretty impressive to me, at least in part because we so often lack guys who can control the ball in tighter spaces and he seemed to have no such issues. Mendez looked dangerous. Weah was disappointing, not bad really, just way too peripheral for his ability. I really did think they looked quite good with a lot of good prospects.

Steffen to Fortuna: Latest episode in how Big Club signings have to be taken with a grain of salt. “Oh wow he’ll be playing in the EPL competing for time at keeper with the champions.” Except, not, no more than the others they have signed before. Bunch of games where he squeezed out other keepers we needed to look at, to chase a work permit he won’t need. And in reality back in Germany 3 notches up from the team (Freiburg) where he started. If there is a positive Fortuna looks like an injury mess at keeper who could in fact use a #1. But then he’s not actually their asset. For snobs some people are surprisingly gullible about how those kinds of big clubs actually operate.

Click to expand...

I think most people who pay attention knew this is what would happen with Steffen.

The United States become the lone country to reach the quarter-final stage of the last three U-20 World Cups.

Click to expand...

This means nothing in terms of how we stack up against the top teams in the world. With only 6 spots for UEFA and 4 for conembol, it is harder for those countries to qualify than it is to actually make it to the QF of the WC. American fans continue to measure themselves by games or tournaments, when they should be judging them on much larger timeframes. We have made a lot of headway, but still have a very long way to go.